Jarhead

[killafilm]

yeah the cheating wife thing/deer hunter scene was all legend...never happend to swafford.  i had to read this for my english class, and i found that the majority of jarhead isnt really swaffords personal memoior but of alot of other stories he had heard throughout his career as a marine.

Hmmm...

Page 65.

One night I'm alone in the barracks, cleaning my M16, while the rest of the platoon watches movies at the Fox Company barracks.  They're hoping for a replay of last night's showing... A homemade porn film had been spliced into a Vietnam flick... The marines were elated that the amateur porn smut had made it past the censors... but that coming woman was his wife... "That's my wife! That's my wife fucking the neighbor, a goddamn squid!"

I must say I haven't read the book, but I mentioned the IMDB thing to my roommate, who was quick to find that.

[Jeremy Blackman]

TESTOSTERONE-ENFLAMED SPOILERS

This was typical Sam Mendes, and that's unfortunate. I'm sick of Mendes, and I'm sick of his formula. This is what I saw for most of the film:

Mundane character development, isolated moment of ironic beauty, mundane character development, isolated moment of ironic beauty, mundane character development, isolated moment of ironic beauty, etc.

These moments seem inserted. They might have been different were they by themselves meaningful, or even meaningful in context, but I don't think they are. They don't belong in this movie as the apexes of meaning.

Did the FMJ structure bother anyone else? It was based on a book, yes, but it does have a selective structure. And it seems at times a thoughtless homage to that film and Three Kings, of which it is essentially a visual knockoff.

Being derivative, Jarhead doesn't have anything to say that hasn't been said before many times much more articulately. And what it does say—that about soldiers being "jarheads," their heads empty receptacles for militarism—it doesn't say particularily well or with any kind of distinction. So this is essentially an unimportant and poorly made film, and it deserves its place among the worst of Sam Mendes's work.

Some of it was valuable. It had some insight into how soldiers can be trained to love violence, although I would have liked more detail—their bloodthirst was not entirely explained. In fact, I don't think it was very empathic. I didn't identify with or even sympathize with the soldiers much, whereas I have very strongly in other films. Their humanity isn't significantly revealed, while their ignorance is.

It just wasn't very well made. And it certainly thought it was. (The wise and omnipotent tone of the narration did not help the film's arrogance problem.)

Also, I think we finally have a film in which Thomas Newman music does not work. Though perfect in other films, his twinkly music does not serve the scenes of excitement and bloodthirst except to slather them with a possibly unintentional irony. And the scene where they play "get it on, bang a gong, get it on" while the soldiers are trying to "get on" their chemical suits (and their superior is yelling "get it on")... that's just stupid.

[Sal]

Oscar-winning film director Sam Mendes claims American viewers don't understand his new movie Jarhead as well as Europeans - because they expect war films to be one-sided. The movie based on the novel Jarhead:  A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford, and focuses on the frivolousness of war, rather than the glory - something Mendes feels Americans don't grasp. Mendes says, "I feel they've understood in Europe. In America, it's like talking about a different movie. "Fundamentally, Jarhead disobeys all the laws of American movies, and not just the political laws of American movies right now which demand on some level to tell us which side they're on. "In Europe, there's a sense this film comes from the tradition of absurdist war movies about the futility of conflict. "It has more in common with Beckett, Sartre and Banuel than it does with Oliver Stone. "In America, they assumed I was trying to make an Oliver Stone movie and that I'd failed."

Mendes compares himself to Beckett, Sartre and Bunuel.  I hope europe finds that as offensive as I do.

[pete]

yeah 'cause Europeans really give a shit about Americans telling other Americans what the Europeans have been saying all along.

[Gold Trumpet]

Oscar-winning film director Sam Mendes claims American viewers don't understand his new movie Jarhead as well as Europeans - because they expect war films to be one-sided. The movie based on the novel Jarhead:  A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford, and focuses on the frivolousness of war, rather than the glory - something Mendes feels Americans don't grasp. Mendes says, "I feel they've understood in Europe. In America, it's like talking about a different movie. "Fundamentally, Jarhead disobeys all the laws of American movies, and not just the political laws of American movies right now which demand on some level to tell us which side they're on. "In Europe, there's a sense this film comes from the tradition of absurdist war movies about the futility of conflict. "It has more in common with Beckett, Sartre and Banuel than it does with Oliver Stone. "In America, they assumed I was trying to make an Oliver Stone movie and that I'd failed."

Mendes compares himself to Beckett, Sartre and Bunuel.  I hope europe finds that as offensive as I do.

I understand the distinction Mendes is trying to make, but to typify the American version as an Oliver Stone fails in all accounts. How do Oliver Stone films align themselves to a certain structure? His films have the comparison of obviously been drawn from the same artist but Stone was as explorative as a filmmaker could get with his subjects. One forgets his Vietnam trilogy actually has a fourth film. Not just Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and Heaven and Earth, but also JFK. JFK speaks as much as any of the others films to the loss of an innocence a country faced when dealing with oncoming war in Vietnam. The shades of gray Stone is able to draw on the subject does not limit him to the one sided nature of stoytelling Mendes is campaigning against.

My opinion of Mendes only shrinks everytime I see one of his films. Recently having watched 'Road to Perdition', I stood enthralled by imagining that every shot for every scene was chosen merely based on how lushed it looked. There is a distance of photographic beauty through out the entire film that dulls the senses. One may argue it is in the nature of the drama. The film feels very Greek influenced with how already spoken for the death of characters like Paul Newman's is because of decisions he made during the film. When he is killed, there is no suspense. Its a proclamation of character for him. Thing is, the decor is too pronouced to allow the drama to really unfold like that. Every set piece looks beautiful even when its not suppose to be. There is a Coen's brother gloss to the film but for the opposite effect. The film invites us to be involved in the drama when there's too much distraction. One scene had Stanley Tucci behind a desk smoking a cigarrette. What was unneccessary was the smoke coming from the cigarrette was the most perfect line of smoke I've ever seen in a movie. It twirled and sometimes wrapped around itself but still a perfect line of smoke never broken by wind or any puff of smoke above him. It was done to look like a painting. That perfection to something so small shouldn't have been there.

When Conrad Hall was promoted to DP of choice for Sam Mendes before his death his work for Butch Cassiday and the Sundance Kid became idolized. Sure the work was excellent and even garnering him an Oscar I believe but that film was nothing like the cinematic glorification his work with Mendes became. It was pretty realistic through out the entire picture. The stand out is the opening scenes in black and white. Those sequences are shot and edited to get the best photography possible. Hall gave it a perfect tint of black and white to match the period. It was only one scene though. I think the filmmakers knew they could never make an entire film out of that approach. I'm starting to think Mendes believes he can.

[takitani]

Mendes' comments were vomit-inducing (Beckett? Banuel? ewwwwww) .... despite, understanding where he was coming from, he could have worded it in a more humble manner. His swipe at Oliver Stone (whose use of politics onscreen is as shameless as Michael Moore's) wasn't even sufficient compensation for that condescending tone of his.

Anyway, back on the topic of Mendes' work ...  To my utmost surprise (I dislike American Beauty and Road to Perdition very much), I actually thought quite highly of Jarhead - it may just be Mendes' first emotionally honest film (a film about something - as opposed to pretending to be about something). And yes, I think it should have been given more credit (most of the U.S. critics were too busy lamenting its lack of politics).

I'm kinda tired of defending Jarhead right now - I've been doing it for a while now on various boards. So I'll just quote Boston Globe's Wesley Morris:

When Sam Mendes's dismaying and intensely ironic adaptation of Anthony Swofford's Desert Storm memoir came out in November, folks carped that it was apolitical and anticlimactic. But the picture's lack of politics is a political statement in itself. Adapted by William Broyles, ''Jarhead" gives us a generation of Marines horny for the violence they've seen in other war movies. (''Apocalypse Now" is their touchstone.) What do they care about politics or valor? They're itching for a fight that never comes. The film is a series of brilliantly mounting anticlimaxes and surreal tableaux including an amazing sequence where it rains only oil. The war they wind up fighting is against boredom, existential misery, and military impotence. This is a more illuminating account of the soldier's condition than the brutalizing ''Full Metal Jacket" -- lightning to Stanley Kubrick's thunder -- and a key to understanding how futility and dislocation lead to episodes like Abu Ghraib.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/12/25/audiences_may_have_been_thin_but_the_years_best_films_reflected_the_times_in_daring_ways_1135349809/

I really enjoyed the aforementioned sexual metaphor that extends from the military establishment to the outlook imposed upon the Jarheads themselves - as depicted in the film. It is very relevant to issues pertaining to contemporary warfare and occupation.

[polkablues]

I'm kinda tired of defending Jarhead right now - I've been doing it for a while now on various boards.

It's nice to have a hobby.

[takitani]

I'm kinda tired of defending Jarhead right now - I've been doing it for a while now on various boards.

It's nice to have a hobby.

Lol.

But it's tiresome, nevertheless. I sound like a pathetic, broken record. A pill hard to swallow. A contrarian for contrarian's sake.

On a related note, I wish I could've at least liked this some of this year's most acclaimed films (GNAGL, Brokeback). It's much more fun to nod and say yes.

I tried to. But I couldn't. I ended up sounding like the party pooper.

[polkablues]

Well, while you're here, why don't you introduce yourself...?

[Pubrick]

But it's tiresome, nevertheless. I sound like a pathetic, broken record. A pill hard to swallow. A contrarian for contrarian's sake.

On a related note, I wish I could've at least liked this some of this year's most acclaimed films (GNAGL, Brokeback). It's much more fun to nod and say yes.

I tried to. But I couldn't. I ended up sounding like the party pooper.

touching story, really.

either do what polka said or move on to the next board.

[takitani]

But it's tiresome, nevertheless. I sound like a pathetic, broken record. A pill hard to swallow. A contrarian for contrarian's sake.

On a related note, I wish I could've at least liked this some of this year's most acclaimed films (GNAGL, Brokeback). It's much more fun to nod and say yes.

I tried to. But I couldn't. I ended up sounding like the party pooper.

touching story, really.

either do what polka said or move on to the next board.

Sorry, if I came off like a self-indulgent freak wallowing in stupid self-pity. I just came off another board coming off as another stupid contrarian. So that was reactionary...

Anyway, I've been a longtime lurker here, actually. Some of your conversations are quite interesting.

Anyhoo, I think I'll continue to lurk here for most of the time... but yeah, keep up the good work.

[sickfins]

Anyhoo, I think I'll continue to lurk here for most of the time... but yeah, keep up the good work.

hey

[Jeremy Blackman]

Oliver Stone (whose use of politics onscreen is as shameless as Michael Moore's)

Umm... why exactly should filmmakers feel ashamed when they're being political?

[modage]

Title: Jarhead
Released: 7th March 2006
SRP: $29.98 & $39.98

Further Details:
Universal has revealed early details on the Sam Mendes directed Jarhead which stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx and Chris Cooper. The film will be available to own in either a single-disc special edition, or a two-disc collector's edition from the 7th March next year. The single-disc will retail at around  $29.98, whereas the collector's edition (with collectible photo book) will set you back $39.98. Both of these releases will carry a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen presentation, along with English, French and Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround tracks. We'll bring you details on the extra material etc shortly.

[©brad]

i don't get that quote "It's more than a movie. It's an experience."